Tom Wheaton wrote...
 
> ...holdover from prehistoric archaeology where you have to grasp at every
straw...whether or not it may have had anything to do with how the
> product was made or used or perceived by the maker and user.  By doing so, we
> get further and further from the people who made and used the stuff.  That's
> why most of us are historical archaeologists and why prehistoric archaeology
> is going the way of anthropology, increasingly irrelevant.
 
Excuse me, but I'm a prehistoric archaeologist, although I've had some
training and experience in historic archy. Although we cannot, in my (I
believe it's still the majority) opinion, delve into the way prehistoric
folks perceived things, and consider that endeavor one of the most
interesting aspects of historical archy, it is not a simplistic and
straightforward matter even for fairly recent time periods. Read, for
example, Handsman's The Production of Individuality paper (one of my
all-time favorites in historical archy), and realize how recently that
was, and what a different world from today!
Also, the sort of classification based on firing temperature & conditions
and clay type has a GREAT deal to do with how something was made, and
perhaps also used, even if the users knew nothing about it.
And please, let's not disparage each others' professions. While I agree that
some prehistorical archaeologists seem determined to lead the way into the
morass of subjectivity in which much of modern cultural anthropology swims
(the rejection of the possibility of a scientific approach), a great deal of
progress is being made by others.
Martha Jackson